Mosque On Ground Zero. An Act Of Aggression: Yea Or Nay?

[G.T.]

Again, MOST people on the right are NOT tying these people into 9/11. Some are sure, but a few people are not representative of any group.

Saying that even though this group has a right to build this mosque they shouldn't because it appears insensitive is not an unreasonable position.

I have seen MANY MANY on the right acknowledge that yes, they have the same right as anyone to build whatever they like, within zoning laws, on their own property. And yes, I have seen a few "lefties" admit that it is insensitive to do so in this situation, but then they turn right around and say something along the lines of "but we have a right to be insensitive in this country", and that is true we DO have that right, well not right per se, but you know what I mean; but exercising THAT right in this situation seems to be a piss poor way proving that you are wanting to build bridges. It's like saying I want to be good neighbors and then having my dog shit on your lawn every morning, the actions don't match the words.

Saying they shouldn't build because it's insensitive, is, in effect, tying them to 9/11. Otherwise, there's really no other reason that it's insensitive.

I don't tie them personally into 9/11. I DO however tie their religion into 9/11(which, you're right is emotional but not logical). I am not going to defend that position, because it is human nature and therefor not entirely logical and simply wouldn't be defensible. Intellectually we all understand that not every Muslim approved of 9/11. That just makes logical sense that 1.5B people don't all agree on something. But we humans aren't based solely on logic and my emotions tell me that countless videos of ordinary Muslims on the streets cheering the deaths of thousands of Americans immediately after 9/11, or any other terror attack, and the relative lack of evidence of Muslims condemning these types of attacks(the man in debate here is a part of an ogranization which creates video pieces doing JUST that) indicates that more Muslims approve of such behavior than some would like to admit. (let's see a poll)

Is Islam a religion of terror? Oh , I think that's debatable and evidence exists to support either position(I disagree). But what is not debatable is that many have used it as a religion of terror(that doesn't matter. you don't blame "the gun" when someone gets shot, do you? No, you blame the shooter. In every case, it's not the religion's fault. It's the faulty brained whacko's who think they're interpreting it. Remember Helter Skelter? Were the Beatles accessories? Exactly). A fact that MANY want to try to hide, or counter with the "So are Christians" argument.(no, what they're saying is that "look, there's violence in Christianity, and assuming you're a Christian, you should be able to understand that it's not really fair to paint all Christians for what few do." That's the position, you're just misinterpreting it.) An argument by the way that holds no water, but that is another thread entirely.

So, if you want to have an honest debate about this, you'd have to admit that A) Islam absolutely is responsible for 9/11 POSSIBLY a perverted version of Islam , but Islam none the less, (why is this OK to say, but it's not OK to say that America's inadvertant killing of innocent Middle-Eastern persons, in War, indirectly causes a lot of the angst against us amongst the crazy brained, albeit not on-purpose? Do you have a family? How would it strike you if our public streets were war zones, and the enemy killed your family in error? How is this not a correct point? How is it "blaming America," by simply pointing to facts? It's a cheap and dishonest way to discount reality)and that is what I do not see ANY on "the other side" acknowledging, hell instead I see some, many in fact, claiming that it had NOTHING to do with Islam. Now that is obviously not true, so the debate right away starts with a lie. how can we have honest debate if one side begins with an untruth?

It is also true that some on "my side" need to admit that there is no proof that these guys are took part in, or supported 9/11. the evidence just isn't there. However we DO have evidence that Islam teaches that lying to infidels is encouraged. So do we just believe them despite the words of their own religion? Also, it is a fact that this Imam Faisel immediately following 9/11 stated that America was partially responsible(he was simply stating the fact that American foreign policy plays a part in why they hate us. He wasn't even disagreeing with American foreign policy. Twisting his words to mean he's "blaming" America is a disengenuous way to add a point to an otherwise honest debate. It's a talk radio tactic, he was not blaming America in any way shape or form), and That is some utter bullshit, those three thousand Americans were innocent.

The next lie that "your side" (stop saying that. I'm not left or right, and it's annoying)must stop telling if we are to have honest debate is the lie that those on the right want the laws changed so mosques can't be built, if not out law Islam completely. Sure there are some kooks who are saying that(well then, it's not a lie to say people are saying that................sheesh), but damn man that is hilarious that "your side" is berating us for supposedly grouping all Muslims in together with their kooks while at the same time grouping anyone who opposes this mosque into the kooky group who want it outlawed(I didn't). I don't want it outlawed, Willow doesn't want it outlawed, RSG doesn't want it outlawed, Syrenn doesn't want it outlawed, and right on down the line. What we want is for the Muslims to say "We CHOOSE not to build this mosque, because public opinion has convinced us that to do so would make it appear that we are building this as a slap in the face to America and that is not our intent". I personally would LOVE to see that statement from Faisel and then to see him propose building a true interfaith community center , and by truly interfaith I mean just that no mosque, no temple, no church. Just include a worship room for all and call it exactly that.

Another issue entirely ignored and denied by some is the historical fact that Muslims tend to build mosques at the sites of great victories, and clearly this can be construed to be such an attempt.(some victory. We've been killing them by the thousands since 9/11).

Here's another sad fact. I believe 100 percent that if this were a situation in which a Christian Church were attempting to do something like this many of the very people who are screaming that the Muslims have their rights would in fact be screaming that the Christians shouldn't do this. Now , I of course don't expect you to admit that(why would I admit something that's not true about myself? That would be quite ridiculous of me), but the evidence is all over this board to support my belief. In short, I believe there is this irrational need to defend Islam sweeping logic from some people's brains right now. And for the record, I AM a Christian, and if the situation were entirely the same but substitute Christian for Muslim I would be telling Brother Faisel that he is an insensitive creep.

me in red.

 

[Tank]

 

[G.T.]

The man in this picture is a Loser. L-7 weenie.

 

[ConHog]

Saying they shouldn't build because it's insensitive, is, in effect, tying them to 9/11. Otherwise, there's really no other reason that it's insensitive.

I don't tie them personally into 9/11. I DO however tie their religion into 9/11(which, you're right is emotional but not logical). I am not going to defend that position, because it is human nature and therefor not entirely logical and simply wouldn't be defensible. Intellectually we all understand that not every Muslim approved of 9/11. That just makes logical sense that 1.5B people don't all agree on something. But we humans aren't based solely on logic and my emotions tell me that countless videos of ordinary Muslims on the streets cheering the deaths of thousands of Americans immediately after 9/11, or any other terror attack, and the relative lack of evidence of Muslims condemning these types of attacks(the man in debate here is a part of an ogranization which creates video pieces doing JUST that) indicates that more Muslims approve of such behavior than some would like to admit. (let's see a poll)

Is Islam a religion of terror? Oh , I think that's debatable and evidence exists to support either position(I disagree). But what is not debatable is that many have used it as a religion of terror(that doesn't matter. you don't blame "the gun" when someone gets shot, do you? No, you blame the shooter. In every case, it's not the religion's fault. It's the faulty brained whacko's who think they're interpreting it. Remember Helter Skelter? Were the Beatles accessories? Exactly). A fact that MANY want to try to hide, or counter with the "So are Christians" argument.(no, what they're saying is that "look, there's violence in Christianity, and assuming you're a Christian, you should be able to understand that it's not really fair to paint all Christians for what few do." That's the position, you're just misinterpreting it.) An argument by the way that holds no water, but that is another thread entirely.

So, if you want to have an honest debate about this, you'd have to admit that A) Islam absolutely is responsible for 9/11 POSSIBLY a perverted version of Islam , but Islam none the less, (why is this OK to say, but it's not OK to say that America's inadvertant killing of innocent Middle-Eastern persons, in War, indirectly causes a lot of the angst against us amongst the crazy brained, albeit not on-purpose? Do you have a family? How would it strike you if our public streets were war zones, and the enemy killed your family in error? How is this not a correct point? How is it "blaming America," by simply pointing to facts? It's a cheap and dishonest way to discount reality)and that is what I do not see ANY on "the other side" acknowledging, hell instead I see some, many in fact, claiming that it had NOTHING to do with Islam. Now that is obviously not true, so the debate right away starts with a lie. how can we have honest debate if one side begins with an untruth?

It is also true that some on "my side" need to admit that there is no proof that these guys are took part in, or supported 9/11. the evidence just isn't there. However we DO have evidence that Islam teaches that lying to infidels is encouraged. So do we just believe them despite the words of their own religion? Also, it is a fact that this Imam Faisel immediately following 9/11 stated that America was partially responsible(he was simply stating the fact that American foreign policy plays a part in why they hate us. He wasn't even disagreeing with American foreign policy. Twisting his words to mean he's "blaming" America is a disengenuous way to add a point to an otherwise honest debate. It's a talk radio tactic, he was not blaming America in any way shape or form), and That is some utter bullshit, those three thousand Americans were innocent.

The next lie that "your side" (stop saying that. I'm not left or right, and it's annoying)must stop telling if we are to have honest debate is the lie that those on the right want the laws changed so mosques can't be built, if not out law Islam completely. Sure there are some kooks who are saying that(well then, it's not a lie to say people are saying that................sheesh), but damn man that is hilarious that "your side" is berating us for supposedly grouping all Muslims in together with their kooks while at the same time grouping anyone who opposes this mosque into the kooky group who want it outlawed(I didn't). I don't want it outlawed, Willow doesn't want it outlawed, RSG doesn't want it outlawed, Syrenn doesn't want it outlawed, and right on down the line. What we want is for the Muslims to say "We CHOOSE not to build this mosque, because public opinion has convinced us that to do so would make it appear that we are building this as a slap in the face to America and that is not our intent". I personally would LOVE to see that statement from Faisel and then to see him propose building a true interfaith community center , and by truly interfaith I mean just that no mosque, no temple, no church. Just include a worship room for all and call it exactly that.

Another issue entirely ignored and denied by some is the historical fact that Muslims tend to build mosques at the sites of great victories, and clearly this can be construed to be such an attempt.(some victory. We've been killing them by the thousands since 9/11).

Here's another sad fact. I believe 100 percent that if this were a situation in which a Christian Church were attempting to do something like this many of the very people who are screaming that the Muslims have their rights would in fact be screaming that the Christians shouldn't do this. Now , I of course don't expect you to admit that(why would I admit something that's not true about myself? That would be quite ridiculous of me), but the evidence is all over this board to support my belief. In short, I believe there is this irrational need to defend Islam sweeping logic from some people's brains right now. And for the record, I AM a Christian, and if the situation were entirely the same but substitute Christian for Muslim I would be telling Brother Faisel that he is an insensitive creep.

me in red.

Yes I see you in red, adn I dont feel like dissecting the statement again so I'll just make a numerical list of my counterpoints to your counterpoints.

1. Humans don't operate on logic alone so expecting us to in this case is unrealistic.

2. He condemns but understands their motivation do have done it? Come on.

3. A poll is of course impossible, however Google "Muslims cheering after 9/11" and see what comes up. Now Google "Muslims condemn 9/11" and see what you get. Call it an informal poll.

4. Hey, I absolutely understand that innocent Iraqis and Afghans are being killed in these wars and I agree it's a shame, but I also understand that

A) The enemy likes to hide behind civilians and then scream foul when those civilians are hurt or killed. Stop ******* using your wives and children as human shields if you don't want them to be harmed , duh!

B) The US military is without question the most concerned military in the history of the world when it comes to collateral damage. I've personally witnessed US soldiers risk their own lives to save Iraqi civilians. Hell, I've seen US soldiers risk their lives to save enemy soldiers in certain situations. Suggesting that the US military isn't concerned with civilian causalities is an insult to anyone of us who has ever wore a uniform.

5. I didn't mean "your side" as in left or right, I mean "your side" as in for or against this mosque. Sorry for the confusion.

6. No , but it is a lie to act like everyone who opposes the Mosque wants to outlaw Islam and many are acting like that is the case.

7. I didn't say you personally did, I said many are, and they are. I just happening to be responding to you that doesn't mean I feel like you personally are doing all these things.

8. They still consider 9/11 itself to be a victory.

9. I didn't ask you to admit it about yourself. I mean you could ask me if Tank is a moron a racist, and I would admit that yes he is, that doesn't mean I'm admitting anything about myself, well other than that we are agreed that tank is a moron racist.

 

[G.T.]

Yes I see you in red, adn I dont feel like dissecting the statement again so I'll just make a numerical list of my counterpoints to your counterpoints.

1. Humans don't operate on logic alone so expecting us to in this case is unrealistic.

That doesn't matter. Acting irrational is acting irrational. Humans are irrational, is not an excuse to smear someone's life as being akin to Terrorists. I'm sorry. But simple emotions don't give a person a pass at just destroying someone's life like that, and it happens to be the life of a person who has been actively promoting peace, no less.

2. He condemns but understands their motivation do have done it? Come on.

No, he condemns it, and points to one of many motivations. You can't deny that it's one of the motivations either, you can read the news every day and see civilian deaths over there. They're not our fault, they're not pretty, but they do exist and stating that they exist is not cuddling to terrorists. It's having an adult discussion with the assumption that assholes and spinners won't take it to mean "I blame America" for political reasons. All this does is take an otherwise peace-promoting man and smear him for no good reason, through spin, again. You're lambasting people for dishonesty in this debate, let's lambast dishonesty then. He never ever once blamed America and has in-fact spoken publicly against ANY terrorism. Twisting his words to posture him as someone doing the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he's doing, is wrong.

3. A poll is of course impossible, however Google "Muslims cheering after 9/11" and see what comes up. Now Google "Muslims condemn 9/11" and see what you get. Call it an informal poll.

I already told you, the very man in question is a member of an organization condemning terrorism.

4. Hey, I absolutely understand that innocent Iraqis and Afghans are being killed in these wars and I agree it's a shame, but I also understand that (then you understand that their parents and family members might be irrationally upset? pointing this fact out isn't "blame America".........no, no....it's just honest discussion)
A) The enemy likes to hide behind civilians and then scream foul when those civilians are hurt or killed. Stop ******* using your wives and children as human shields if you don't want them to be harmed , duh! (I agree, probably so do most people. Unfortunately, people who live in mud-huts with no electricity have a hard time seeing the reality of the situation )

B) The US military is without question the most concerned military in the history of the world when it comes to collateral damage. I've personally witnessed US soldiers risk their own lives to save Iraqi civilians. Hell, I've seen US soldiers risk their lives to save enemy soldiers in certain situations. Suggesting that the US military isn't concerned with civilian causalities is an insult to anyone of us who has ever wore a uniform.(noone suggested that. This is spin and sensationalism. You're arguing against a point that wasn't even made. I thought we were going to have an honest discussion. Saying that civilians are killed and it's a shame is not the same thing as saying "soldiers don't take great care," but hey, honesty sucks in an argument I guess. )

5. I didn't mean "your side" as in left or right, I mean "your side" as in for or against this mosque. Sorry for the confusion.

6. No , but it is a lie to act like everyone who opposes the Mosque wants to outlaw Islam and many are acting like that is the case. Irrelevant in a discussion with me.

7. I didn't say you personally did, I said many are, and they are. I just happening to be responding to you that doesn't mean I feel like you personally are doing all these things.

8. They still consider 9/11 itself to be a victory. (who, specifically? Terrorists? Or the builders who condemned 9/11? honesty, remember?>)

9. I didn't ask you to admit it about yourself. I mean you could ask me if Tank is a moron a racist, and I would admit that yes he is, that doesn't mean I'm admitting anything about myself, well other than that we are agreed that tank is a moron racist.

@ #9

 

[saveliberty]

I have a right to make as much profit as I can.

I have a right to say very offesive things.

Does it mean I shouldn't exercise common sense and restraint?

 

[ConHog]

Yes I see you in red, adn I dont feel like dissecting the statement again so I'll just make a numerical list of my counterpoints to your counterpoints.

1. Humans don't operate on logic alone so expecting us to in this case is unrealistic.

That doesn't matter. Acting irrational is acting irrational. Humans are irrational, is not an excuse to smear someone's life as being akin to Terrorists. I'm sorry. But simple emotions don't give a person a pass at just destroying someone's life like that, and it happens to be the life of a person who has been actively promoting peace, no less.

2. He condemns but understands their motivation do have done it? Come on.

No, he condemns it, and points to one of many motivations. You can't deny that it's one of the motivations either, you can read the news every day and see civilian deaths over there. They're not our fault, they're not pretty, but they do exist and stating that they exist is not cuddling to terrorists. It's having an adult discussion with the assumption that assholes and spinners won't take it to mean "I blame America" for political reasons. All this does is take an otherwise peace-promoting man and smear him for no good reason, through spin, again. You're lambasting people for dishonesty in this debate, let's lambast dishonesty then. He never ever once blamed America and has in-fact spoken publicly against ANY terrorism. Twisting his words to posture him as someone doing the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he's doing, is wrong.

3. A poll is of course impossible, however Google "Muslims cheering after 9/11" and see what comes up. Now Google "Muslims condemn 9/11" and see what you get. Call it an informal poll.

I already told you, the very man in question is a member of an organization condemning terrorism.

4. Hey, I absolutely understand that innocent Iraqis and Afghans are being killed in these wars and I agree it's a shame, but I also understand that (then you understand that their parents and family members might be irrationally upset? pointing this fact out isn't "blame America".........no, no....it's just honest discussion)
A) The enemy likes to hide behind civilians and then scream foul when those civilians are hurt or killed. Stop ******* using your wives and children as human shields if you don't want them to be harmed , duh! (I agree, probably so do most people. Unfortunately, people who live in mud-huts with no electricity have a hard time seeing the reality of the situation )

B) The US military is without question the most concerned military in the history of the world when it comes to collateral damage. I've personally witnessed US soldiers risk their own lives to save Iraqi civilians. Hell, I've seen US soldiers risk their lives to save enemy soldiers in certain situations. Suggesting that the US military isn't concerned with civilian causalities is an insult to anyone of us who has ever wore a uniform.(noone suggested that. This is spin and sensationalism. You're arguing against a point that wasn't even made. I thought we were going to have an honest discussion. Saying that civilians are killed and it's a shame is not the same thing as saying "soldiers don't take great care," but hey, honesty sucks in an argument I guess. )

5. I didn't mean "your side" as in left or right, I mean "your side" as in for or against this mosque. Sorry for the confusion.

6. No , but it is a lie to act like everyone who opposes the Mosque wants to outlaw Islam and many are acting like that is the case. Irrelevant in a discussion with me.

7. I didn't say you personally did, I said many are, and they are. I just happening to be responding to you that doesn't mean I feel like you personally are doing all these things.

8. They still consider 9/11 itself to be a victory. (who, specifically? Terrorists? Or the builders who condemned 9/11? honesty, remember?>)

9. I didn't ask you to admit it about yourself. I mean you could ask me if Tank is a moron a racist, and I would admit that yes he is, that doesn't mean I'm admitting anything about myself, well other than that we are agreed that tank is a moron racist.

1. Who is calling Faisel a terrorist? I certainly am not. I am however saying that the religeon he follows is 100% responsible for 9/11. All the "maybe America deserved it" BS aside. Yes, I know not all Muslims are responsible, just as I know that not all Muslims are apt to blow up a plane I get on, but guess what? I won't fly on a plane that some obvious Muslim is sitting on. Does that make me paranoid? Probably, but even a paranoid person can can have someone out to get them. The point? People don't trust Islam right now, and with good reason.

2. BS - A condemnation reads like this " I condemn their actions, there is NO possible justification for such actions" not "well they probably shouldn't have done it, but you know maybe America deserved it." yes I know those aren't the exact words, but you get the gist. The fact that he attempted to justify it leads many to believe he wasn't Really condemning it.


3. See above, and besides like it or not he represents Islam as a whole in many regards and people don't trust Islam right now.

4. You do realize that no Iraqis or Afghans civilian or otherwise were being killled by US soldiers prior to 9/11 right? Well not since 1991 anyway.

Oh, I see, so because we have electricity and houses we're supposed to tolerate the killing of our innocent people?

5. It sure seemed like that is what you were saying and PS I am being honest with you, and I'm not accusing you of being dishonest, but if you would like to discontinue this conversation, by all means keep accusing me of being dishonest.

8. Obviously by they I meant the Muslims who celebrated 9/11. if faisel falls in that category so be it.

I'm done, since you can't refrain from calling me a liar. Have a good day.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Every religion has a violent fringe.

Violence in not radical or fringe in Islamic scripture it is the norm.
Islam calls for the death of all non members.

So what? Given what a small percentage of Muslims do in fact act out whatever violence their storybook talks about,

it should be readily apparent to anyone with a brain that being a Muslim does not require being a terrorist, anymore than being a Christian requires that you believe the earth is 6000 years old.

 

[chanel]

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslim.

Muslims don't scare me. But Muslim males between the ages of 18-35 who pray in radical mosques and may communicate via pre-paid cell phones with people in terror sponsoring nations should concern all of us. Oh wait - that's profiling. My bad.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why are people bringing up the 80% number?

20% favor, math says 80% must not favor

20% Favor Mosque Near Ground Zero, 54% Oppose - Rasmussen Reports

There are other polls that explicit say 70% oppose so we can split teh difference and say 75% of you'd like

CNN Poll: Nearly 70% Of Americans Oppose NYC Mosque Plan

It's irrelevant, if it's a rights issue. That was the whole point of the Bill of Rights.

 

[ConHog]

Why are people bringing up the 80% number?

20% favor, math says 80% must not favor

20% Favor Mosque Near Ground Zero, 54% Oppose - Rasmussen Reports

There are other polls that explicit say 70% oppose so we can split teh difference and say 75% of you'd like

CNN Poll: Nearly 70% Of Americans Oppose NYC Mosque Plan

It's irrelevant, if it's a rights issue. That was the whole point of the Bill of Rights.

true enough, too bad this isn't a right's issue. There is no right to build and besides that, we aren't even discussing do they have the legal ability to do so. We are debating would they really build this if they were wanting to build bridges between Muslims and non Muslims. The reason you guys keep trying to argue that this is a right's issue is because you know without doubt that Faisel and co. are ******* asshoies for wanting to do something that 70-80% of Americans would find offensive.

Try some honesty for a change, no one said they don't have the ability to build this on their property.

 

[Shogun]

I have a right to make as much profit as I can.

I have a right to say very offesive things.

Does it mean I shouldn't exercise common sense and restraint?

does that mean that those who choose not to are restrained from choosing not to?

 

[G.T.]

Yes I see you in red, adn I dont feel like dissecting the statement again so I'll just make a numerical list of my counterpoints to your counterpoints.

1. Humans don't operate on logic alone so expecting us to in this case is unrealistic.

That doesn't matter. Acting irrational is acting irrational. Humans are irrational, is not an excuse to smear someone's life as being akin to Terrorists. I'm sorry. But simple emotions don't give a person a pass at just destroying someone's life like that, and it happens to be the life of a person who has been actively promoting peace, no less.

2. He condemns but understands their motivation do have done it? Come on.

No, he condemns it, and points to one of many motivations. You can't deny that it's one of the motivations either, you can read the news every day and see civilian deaths over there. They're not our fault, they're not pretty, but they do exist and stating that they exist is not cuddling to terrorists. It's having an adult discussion with the assumption that assholes and spinners won't take it to mean "I blame America" for political reasons. All this does is take an otherwise peace-promoting man and smear him for no good reason, through spin, again. You're lambasting people for dishonesty in this debate, let's lambast dishonesty then. He never ever once blamed America and has in-fact spoken publicly against ANY terrorism. Twisting his words to posture him as someone doing the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he's doing, is wrong.

3. A poll is of course impossible, however Google "Muslims cheering after 9/11" and see what comes up. Now Google "Muslims condemn 9/11" and see what you get. Call it an informal poll.

I already told you, the very man in question is a member of an organization condemning terrorism.

4. Hey, I absolutely understand that innocent Iraqis and Afghans are being killed in these wars and I agree it's a shame, but I also understand that (then you understand that their parents and family members might be irrationally upset? pointing this fact out isn't "blame America".........no, no....it's just honest discussion)
A) The enemy likes to hide behind civilians and then scream foul when those civilians are hurt or killed. Stop ******* using your wives and children as human shields if you don't want them to be harmed , duh! (I agree, probably so do most people. Unfortunately, people who live in mud-huts with no electricity have a hard time seeing the reality of the situation )

B) The US military is without question the most concerned military in the history of the world when it comes to collateral damage. I've personally witnessed US soldiers risk their own lives to save Iraqi civilians. Hell, I've seen US soldiers risk their lives to save enemy soldiers in certain situations. Suggesting that the US military isn't concerned with civilian causalities is an insult to anyone of us who has ever wore a uniform.(noone suggested that. This is spin and sensationalism. You're arguing against a point that wasn't even made. I thought we were going to have an honest discussion. Saying that civilians are killed and it's a shame is not the same thing as saying "soldiers don't take great care," but hey, honesty sucks in an argument I guess. )

5. I didn't mean "your side" as in left or right, I mean "your side" as in for or against this mosque. Sorry for the confusion.

6. No , but it is a lie to act like everyone who opposes the Mosque wants to outlaw Islam and many are acting like that is the case. Irrelevant in a discussion with me.

7. I didn't say you personally did, I said many are, and they are. I just happening to be responding to you that doesn't mean I feel like you personally are doing all these things.

8. They still consider 9/11 itself to be a victory. (who, specifically? Terrorists? Or the builders who condemned 9/11? honesty, remember?>)

9. I didn't ask you to admit it about yourself. I mean you could ask me if Tank is a moron a racist, and I would admit that yes he is, that doesn't mean I'm admitting anything about myself, well other than that we are agreed that tank is a moron racist.

1. Who is calling Faisel a terrorist? I certainly am not. I am however saying that the religeon he follows is 100% responsible for 9/11. All the "maybe America deserved it" BS aside. Yes, I know not all Muslims are responsible, just as I know that not all Muslims are apt to blow up a plane I get on, but guess what? I won't fly on a plane that some obvious Muslim is sitting on. Does that make me paranoid? Probably, but even a paranoid person can can have someone out to get them. The point? People don't trust Islam right now, and with good reason.

2. BS - A condemnation reads like this " I condemn their actions, there is NO possible justification for such actions" not "well they probably shouldn't have done it, but you know maybe America deserved it." yes I know those aren't the exact words, but you get the gist. The fact that he attempted to justify it leads many to believe he wasn't Really condemning it.


3. See above, and besides like it or not he represents Islam as a whole in many regards and people don't trust Islam right now.

4. You do realize that no Iraqis or Afghans civilian or otherwise were being killled by US soldiers prior to 9/11 right? Well not since 1991 anyway.

Oh, I see, so because we have electricity and houses we're supposed to tolerate the killing of our innocent people?
5. It sure seemed like that is what you were saying and PS I am being honest with you, and I'm not accusing you of being dishonest, but if you would like to discontinue this conversation, by all means keep accusing me of being dishonest.

8. Obviously by they I meant the Muslims who celebrated 9/11. if faisel falls in that category so be it.

I'm done, since you can't refrain from calling me a liar. Have a good day.

Yes, I'm done here. What you in-effect do is pull meanings out of my words that aren't even there, after even me explaining them for you. Have a nice day.

 

[Shogun]

20% favor, math says 80% must not favor

20% Favor Mosque Near Ground Zero, 54% Oppose - Rasmussen Reports

There are other polls that explicit say 70% oppose so we can split teh difference and say 75% of you'd like

CNN Poll: Nearly 70% Of Americans Oppose NYC Mosque Plan

It's irrelevant, if it's a rights issue. That was the whole point of the Bill of Rights.

true enough, too bad this isn't a right's issue. There is no right to build and besides that, we aren't even discussing do they have the legal ability to do so. We are debating would they really build this if they were wanting to build bridges between Muslims and non Muslims. The reason you guys keep trying to argue that this is a right's issue is because you know without doubt that Faisel and co. are ******* asshoies for wanting to do something that 70-80% of Americans would find offensive.

Try some honesty for a change, no one said they don't have the ability to build this on their property.

you are so ******* stupid. seriously.

 

[saveliberty]

I have a right to make as much profit as I can.

I have a right to say very offesive things.

Does it mean I shouldn't exercise common sense and restraint?

does that mean that those who choose not to are restrained from choosing not to?

Depends how you define restrained. Something of this magnitude usually has negative consequences.

 

[Shogun]

I have a right to make as much profit as I can.

I have a right to say very offesive things.

Does it mean I shouldn't exercise common sense and restraint?

does that mean that those who choose not to are restrained from choosing not to?

Depends how you define restrained. Something of this magnitude usually has negative consequences.

no, it really doesn't. Can you list a few examples of "offensive things" and "as much profit" that has been restrained for the sake of "common sense"?

 

[ConHog]

RUH ROH, looks like this guy was denied his "rights" where is the outrage?

Hauled water and denied building permits in San Bernardino County

 

[saveliberty]

does that mean that those who choose not to are restrained from choosing not to?

Depends how you define restrained. Something of this magnitude usually has negative consequences.

no, it really doesn't. Can you list a few examples of "offensive things" and "as much profit" that has been restrained for the sake of "common sense"?

A list of your medications might help the rest of us more.

 

[ConHog]

Depends how you define restrained. Something of this magnitude usually has negative consequences.

no, it really doesn't. Can you list a few examples of "offensive things" and "as much profit" that has been restrained for the sake of "common sense"?

A list of your medications might help the rest of us more.

I think the issue is that he is OFF his medications lol

 

[Shogun]

Depends how you define restrained. Something of this magnitude usually has negative consequences.

no, it really doesn't. Can you list a few examples of "offensive things" and "as much profit" that has been restrained for the sake of "common sense"?

A list of your medications might help the rest of us more.

so that's a "No, Shogun, I really can't. In fact, I'm just a silly bastard throwing out poorly planned shit talking because my mommy didn't love me as a child."


ok then!